Duke v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 2007
14 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Katz v. United States · United States v. Wade · Mapp v. Ohio · Ashe v. Swenson
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Collateral estoppel differs from res judicata in that in the latter the cause of action in the first and second occasions must be identical. Perhaps the most often cited opinion on this distinction is found in C.I.R. v. Sunnen , 333 U.S. 591 , where at pp. 597 and 598, 68 S.Ct. 715 at p. 719, 92 L.Ed. 898 , we find: "`It is first necessary to understand something of the recognized meaning and scope of res judicata , a doctrine judicial in origin. The general rule of res judiciata applies to repetitious suits involving the same cause of action. It rests upon considerations of economy of judicial time and public policy favoring the establishment of certainty in legal relations . . . "`But where the second action between the same parties is upon a different cause or demand, the principle of res judicata is applied much more narrowly. In this situation, the judgment in the prior action operates as an estoppel, not as to matters which might have been litigated and determined, but only as to those matters in issue or points controverted, upon the determination of which the finding or verdict was rendered.' . . ." "First we point out that no Alabama case has been shown to us applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel in a criminal case. Mitchell v. State , 140 Ala. 118 , 37 So. 76 , stated, by way of advice for a trial de novo, that the defendant — when faced with admission of proof of another crime not of the res gestae — was then entitled to show an acquittal of the other charg”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.